I have interacted in some detail in the past with British scholar John Nelson, who holds a PhD in Christian Origins from New College, University of Edinburgh. Nelson identifies as a Christian, though apparently he does not believe Christianity is justified by evidence, nor does he think the Bible is historically reliable. It was recently brought to my attention that he published an essay earlier this year on the feeding of the five thousand. Though there is much in the content of Nelson’s blog with which I strongly disagree, this particular essay touches on an aspect of the historical methodology that I apply to the gospels. I therefore thought it appropriate for me to weigh in on Nelson’s critique of the argument from undesigned coincidences for the historical reportage hypothesis. Nelson is one of only a few scholars who have actually attempted to engage in a serious way with the argument. Most recently, I and others have engaged with Jeffrey Tripp, another scholarly critic of the argument. I wish I could say that there are more thoughtful and careful rebuttals to the argument. Erudite scholarly critique can be quite fruitful in helping one to refine and nuance one’s arguments. However, unfortunately, at present there is none.
The Timing of Passover
One undesigned coincidence relates to Mark’s statement that the people as sitting down in groups on “the green grass” (Mk 6:39). This is significant, not because Mark mentions people sitting on the grass (Matthew 14:19 also records people sitting “down on the grass”, and Luke 9:15 reports that “everyone sat down”, and John 6:10 notes that “There was plenty of grass in that place, and they sat down.”). It is significant because Mark reports that the grass was “green”. This is particularly intriguing when one considers that, in Israel (particularly in Galilee) the grass is brown.
What makes this even more intriguing is that Mark’s gospel (6:30-42) also states, in verses 30-31 that,
The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.
Mark casually alludes to there being many people coming and going, indicating the hustle and bustle and general busyness of the area during this time. But why were there many coming and going? Mark does not tell us. In John’s account, however, we are told that “The Jewish Passover Festival was near,” (Jn 6:4). This explains why many people were “coming and going,” which according to Mark’s account supplied the motivation for moving to the deserted area. Moreover, during the season of the Passover (i.e., in the spring time), there is a relatively small window where the grass is indeed green in that area, due to elevated levels of rainfall.
Nelson responds to this coincidence by noting that, first, that “the crowd’s following Jesus is a Markan trope (found also in 3:7-9) and Passover is not an uncommon setting to John. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, which features only one Passover event, John has three, around which most of his narrative revolves. It is therefore unsurprising that the feeding account is placed around Passover in John, or that ‘many were coming or going’ in Mark.” While it is true that Jesus is often followed by crowds in Mark’s gospel, the participles ἐρχόμενοι (“coming”) and ὑπάγοντες (“going away”) seem to simply refer to general movement rather than crowds that were specifically there for Jesus. It is only after Jesus and the disciples cross the lake that Mark emphasizes the crowd that was seeking Jesus. Jesus’ instruction to go to the deserted area makes little sense if the crowds were there primarily because of Jesus. Indeed, when they do move away from the hustle and bustle, the crowds follow them only because people recognized (ἐπέγνωσαν) them as they were on their way to a deserted place.
Nelson further claims that “The green grass is also a red herring, for the time-span for ‘green grass’ is not so narrow as to connect the event to Passover. Mary Anne Beavis comments: ‘[for] members of the audience familiar with the Palestinian climate, the reference to greenery situates the incident in the rainy season, October to early May (emphasis added].’ Most rain fell through November to February. It is therefore unclear whether Mark’s account specifically indicates a Passover setting.” While it is true that October through early May is the rainy season, the window of time in which one might expect to observe a large patch of green grass, however, is narrower than this. In fact, Israel receives nearly all of its annual rainfall between the months of November and March. The landscape begins to turn green following the first significant rains, typically by late December. The peak period for observing green grass is usually January through March. By the middle of April, the ceasing of the rains and the climbing temperatures result in the landscape becoming brown again.
Here is a graph, showing the precipitation in millimeters at the nearby town of Tiberias [1]:
As shown in the chart, there is a significant amount of rainfall in the months of November, December, January, February, and March. There is also a need for sunshine following the rain to allow for the “greening up” of a large space, as indicated by Mark. Spring time, then, is when one might expect to see a large amount of green grass.
When this is coupled with the detail given to us by John that the Passover festival (in the spring) was at hand, this illuminates and makes sense of the casual (but surprising) statements in Mark that the grass was green and that people were coming and going. As Peter J. Williams notes, “Between the years AD 26 and 36, all possible dates for Passover ranged between the last days of March and the end of April. So if this event really took place at the time recorded, we should indeed expect that after the five most significant months of precipitation, grass would have been green.” [2]
Nelson further comments,
One might raise the objection: but why else would Mark mention that the grass was green? Surely this is the kind of detail which one does not simply invent?
In fact, minor details were natural for ancient biographers to invent, and there is a very obvious reason why Mark would tell us that the grass was green. As Graham Gwelftree explains, “[at] first sight this may be [sic] seem to an incidental detail reflecting an eyewitness account, but it could have been inserted as a reminder that in the messianic age the desert will be fertile (cf. Is 35:1), or it may reflect the shepherd’s role of leading his sheep to lie down in green pastures.” One might also recall Ezekiel 34, which describes a Davidic shepherd who leads Israel on good pastures.
The idea that Mark is presenting us here with a picture of the messianic age is clear once we consider that other details point in this direction. From the mention that Jesus had compassion on the crowds like sheep without a shepherd (6:34; cf. Num. 27:17), to his provision of bread in a wilderness setting (Exod. 16:1-4; 2 Bar 29:-38) and his organization of the crowds into rows of hundreds and fifties (6:40; cf. Exod. 18:25-26; Deut. 1:13-15; 1QRule of the Community 2:18-23), we find Jesus presented as a Moses-like figure (Deut. 18:15-18). While these details are lost on many modern readers, they would have been much more natural to ancient Jewish ones.
The hypothesis that Mark allegedly invented the green grass in order to allude to the fertility of the Messianic age does not explain at all why it fits together so well with the account in John. It is not difficult to come up with creative explanations for just about any detail given by the gospels. Indeed, had the text said that the people sat down on the brown grass, undoubtedly this would be taken to be symbolic of Israel’s spiritual barrenness, the point of the story being that Jesus alone can bring life to spiritual dryness. Jesus enters Israel’s wasteland to provide the true Bread that the nation lacks. Or perhaps it would be an echo of Isaiah 40:7-8, which says “The grass withers, the flower fades…” Or perhaps it could be seen as a subtle reversal of Psalm 23. Whereas the shepherd of Psalm 23 “makes me lie down in green pastures,” the brown grass in Mark indicates that the Messiah has come because the pastures have failed. He must therefore prepare a table in the wilderness, creating green pastures out of brown ones. Since Nelson emphasizes that Jesus is being presented as a new Moses figure, perhaps the brown grass symbolizes Israel’s wilderness wandering where the ground was lifeless. Jesus feeds his people in a desolate place, just as Moses did. The possibilities are endless.
Turning to the Local Boy, Philip
Another undesigned coincidence relates to John 6:1-5, in which we are told,
After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. 2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick. 3 Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. 5 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?”
Now, Philip is a fairly minor character in the New Testament. And one might, naturally, be inclined to wonder why Jesus hasn’t turned to someone a little higher in the pecking order (such as Peter or John). Perhaps even Judas Iscariot would have been a more suitable choice for this role in the account, since John informs us elsewhere that he was responsible for the money bag (Jn 13:29). Another relatively minor disciple, Andrew (the brother of Simon Peter) also gets involved in the reply in verses 8-9. Why does Andrew get involved here?
A partial clue is provided in John 1:44: “Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida.” Likewise, John 12:21 refers to “Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee.” What is so significant about Philip and Andrew being from the town of Bethsaida? We don’t learn this until we read the parallel account in Luke’s gospel (9:10-17). At the opening of the account (verses 10-11) we are told,
“When the apostles returned, they reported to Jesus what they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew by themselves to a town called Bethsaida, but the crowds learned about it and followed him. He welcomed them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.”
And so, we are informed by Luke (who does not mention Philip or Andrew in this context at all) that the event was actually taking place in Bethsaida — the town from which Philip and Andrew were from. Jesus thus turns to Philip, whom, he believed, would be familiar with the area. This also plausibly illuminates the involvement of Andrew (who was also from Bethsaida — Jn 1:44) in the reply. Andrew says to Jesus in John 6:9, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” One may conjecture that Andrew, being from Bethsaida where this miracle took place, knew the boy, or perhaps Jesus had directed his question to Philip and Andrew, both of whom were locals.
The reason for Jesus addressing Philip in John 6:5 is never explicitly spelled out in the text. Instead, one has to do the detective work of piecing together the clues drawn from John 6:5; John 12:21 (and 1:44); and Luke 9:10-17. This is precisely the sort of casual connection between accounts that one might expect to see in historical reportage, though it is more surprising given the hypothesis of fictionalization.
How does John Nelson respond to this coincidence? He writes,
Yet this presentation leaves out a crucial fact: in the earliest presentation of this story, the feeding of the five thousand doesn’t take place in Bethsaida. It does not take place in the hometown of Philip. Rather, it takes place on the other side of the [sea of] Galilee. This is why we are told by Mark that the disciples cross over ‘to Bethsaida’ after the event.
The following map will be helpful as we consider this objection:
The first thing to note is that we have independent confirmation that the event occurred in a deserted area near Bethsaida, based on two undesigned coincidences, including the one described above. The other concerns Jesus’ denouncing of the unrepentant cities in Matthew 11:21: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” The reader is left wondering what miracles were performed in these cities. We are not told in Matthew’s gospel. It is only in light of Luke’s account of the feeding of the five thousand (chapter 9), in which we are told of the event’s occurrence in Bethsaida, that this statement begins to make sense. Although Matthew 14:13-21 does narrate the feeding of the five thousand, no mention is made of Bethsaida. Furthermore, Matthew, who often arranged his material thematically rather than chronologically, gives his account of the feeding of the five thousand some three chapters subsequent to the pronouncement of woe upon Bethsaida. Only by comparing the account in Luke do we discover that the feeding of the five thousand in fact transpired before the woes were pronounced by Jesus upon Bethsaida in the very next chapter (Lk 10:13). Luke 9:11 also indicates that, at this event, Jesus performed various healing miracles.
John’s gospel also indicates that the feeding of the five thousand took place on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee, since after the feeding, the disciples “went down to the sea, got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum,” (John 6:16-17). As you can see from the map above, Capernaum is on the northwestern side of the Sea of Galilee. Across the sea from the region of Bethsaida is indeed in the direction of Capernaum.
There is, in fact, evidence that is internal to Mark’s gospel itself that suggest the feeding of the five thousand took place on the northeast side of the Sea of Galilee (as opposed to the northwest side). Mark indicates that the disciples did not even have leisure to eat before the feeding, because there were “many coming and going” (Mark 6:31), and that they got into the boat to get away from the crowds. As previously mentioned, this fits well with the indication in John 6:4 that the feast of Passover was at hand (in particular, if Jesus and the disciples were in or near Capernaum, which was a major center). If they departed Capernaum by boat, it is not implausible that they ended up in the vicinity of Bethsaida (going along the top of the Sea of Galilee), which is what is indicated by Luke 9:10. Mark, in fact, explicitly says that they landed at Gennesaret when they had crossed over (Mark 6:53)! Gennesaret is geographically very close to Capernaum. Thus, this actually, far from contradicting, confirms the idea of which direction they were going. If they were really crossing over “to Bethsaida” as if to land at or near Bethsaida, they could not have landed at Gennesaret (see the map above)! Moreover, as Cyndi Parker observes, “Matthew and Mark both state that the disciples struggled to reach their destination because the wind was against them (Matt 14:24; Mark 6:48). Since weather systems typically come from the Mediterranean Sea, the fierce wind causing the terrifying storm was likely coming from the west. This small detail suggests the disciples were traveling from the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee to the western side, further supporting the suggestion that the miracle took place in Gaulanitis…” [3]
Thus, πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν, even within Mark itself, cannot be taken to mean that the feeding of the five thousand occurred in a radically different location from the region of Bethsaida named explicitly in Luke and otherwise confirmed by undesigned coincidences. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the feeding of the five thousand miracle took place in Bethsaida.
This still leaves unanswered the question of what Mark means in 6:45. The Greek text says that the disciples were to enter into the boat and προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν. Lydia McGrew argues that the Greek preposition πρὸς can mean “over against” (or “across from”). [4] However, I am at this point unpersuaded by this translation. While one of the possible meanings of πρὸς is “against” (e.g. Mt 4:6; Mk 12:12; Lk 4:11; 20:19; Acts 6:1; 9:29; 19:38; 23:30; 24:19; 26:14), I have been unable to find any instances, in either the New Testament or the Greek Septuagint, where the preposition unequivocally means geographically “opposite to”, as would be required by McGrew’s proposed interpretation.
Another possibility is that, in going over to the other side (to the Capernaum side) they were going to pass Bethsaida — that is, that the actual location of the feeding was slightly to the east of Bethsaida itself (recall that the event actually took place at a desolate area, in proximity to Bethsaida — Mt 14:13; Mk 6:32; Lk 9:12). Indeed, the stated location of Bethsaida, I would argue, is being used in a regional sense (in the same way that someone today might say that he or she lives in Boston even though technically they only live in a suburb of Boston). Hence, when they left in Mark to go to the other side, they could have been going “toward” Bethsaida, which would be a legitimate understanding of the preposition πρὸς.
A yet further option is that Mark’s source, quite plausibly the apostle Peter, misspoke a single word when reporting the event. This is not antecedently implausible. Misspeaking a single word on occasion is something that anyone experienced in public speaking is all too familiar with.
Whatever the actual explanation, this apparent discrepancy points to the literary independence of Mark and Luke, thereby bolstering the evidential significance of the undesigned coincidences relating to the event.
Nelson attempts to offer an explanation for the discrepancy, citing the work of Mark Goodacre on editorial fatigue:
So how did the conflict arise? Mark Goodacre finds a plausible explanation in what he calls ‘editorial fatigue,’ a phenomenon which crops up several times in the Gospels. This occurs when a writer (here Luke) is dependent upon another (Mark), but failed to sustain their editorial activity. In this case, Luke’s hand is betrayed when he resets the feeding in ‘a city’ but has Jesus describe the surroundings as ‘a desolate place’ (9:12).
No explanation is provided, however, as to what motivated Luke to deliberately change the location found in Mark. Moreover, the disciples’ statement concerning the surrounding places where the people could go to purchase food indicates that the “desolate place” was not far from those surrounding villages and countryside. As stated previously, the stated location of Bethsaida is being used in a regional sense. This is the most natural way of reading Luke’s account. Furthermore, Matthew — which most scholars agree was independent of Luke, though utilizing at times common source material — also indicates that they were in a desolate place (Mt 14:13,15). Furthermore, there is also the independent evidence, discussed above, that the location of the feeding of the five thousand as indicated by Luke is correct.
Moreover, there are significant difficulties with Goodacre’s argument. For example, not only is Goodacre silent on why Luke would make this change, but there is no apparent reason at all why he would have done so. And are we really to envision Luke becoming fatigued and forgetting what he just wrote two verses earlier? Moreover, the great size of the crowd (being five thousand men — Luke 9:14) is not changed in Luke’s account. Does Goodacre believe that Luke thought of the town of Bethsaida as being capable of accommodating a crowd of five thousand people all sitting down together and being fed in some large open area? Goodacre contends that “if the crowd were in a city, they would not need to go to the surrounding villages and countryside to find food and lodging.” [5] But this is nonsense. We are talking about a crowd of five thousand men, besides women and children (Matthew 14:21) here. Imagine having five thousand men, in addition to women and children, descend upon your local superstore. They would max the place out (let alone ancient markets!). It is not at all obvious, therefore, that such a crowd, if it were in the city, “would not need to go to the surrounding villages and countryside to find food and lodging” — particularly given that the day was drawing to a close (Luke 9:12). For a detailed discussion of this alleged example of editorial fatigue, I refer readers to Lydia McGrew’s video on the subject.
Nelson continues,
Still, we might wonder: is it not curious that Jesus turns to Philip? In fact, discourses in biographies were often invented. While Philip may seem an odd choice of a conversation partner to us, his character has a more prominent role in John than in the Synoptics, and he looms large in Christian apocrypha. Thus, John would not be the only author among early Christian writers who filled in the gaps with Philip.
Actually, there is a grand total of two other places in John’s gospel where Philip speaks (Jn 1:45-46; 14:8). There is also a very brief mention of Philip passing on a message to Andrew that certain Greeks wanted to speak to Jesus (Jn 12:21). Simon Peter, the beloved disciple (best understood to be John the son of Zebedee), and Thomas all play more prominent roles than Philip in John’s gospel. Other disciples explicitly named in John’s gospel (aside from Andrew who is also from Bethsaida) include Judas Iscariot, Nathanael, Judas (not Iscariot), and the sons of Zebedee.
Nelson further objects,
Moreover, if this dialogue is supposed to point to the underlying memory of the feeding story, it is noticeable that the dialogues substantially differ. In Mark, it is the disciples who turn to Jesus, and he responds for them to give the disciples to give something to eat. While in John, it is Jesus who has the plan and so asks Philip!
These dialogues are not mutually exclusive, though, and there is no apparent reason why John would have intentionally changed the dialogue in Luke. The difference between the two accounts, however, does contribute to the case for the factual independence of the accounts (more on this later).
The Fifties and the Hundreds
Nelson writes,
Finally, we turn to the way in which the crowds were organized: according to fifties and hundreds. Notably, it is only John who tells us that the men sat down. This may explain how the food was distributed (from men to their women and children.) It also explains why Matthew states that there were 5,000 men — not counting the women and cihldren. Only the men, who have been numbered into groups, were counted.
In my opinion, this is the weakest of the undesigned coincidences associated with the feeding of the five thousand, and I seldomly use it myself. Nonetheless, how does Nelson engage with this point? He comments,
The problem with this is threefold. First, Mark conflicts with Matthew in stating that ‘the ones having eaten the loves [sic] were five thousand males [andres]’ (6:44). Again, our earliest source does not have women and children involved in the meal itself?”
This is not a conflict at all. Both Matthew and Mark agree that there were five thousand males that were fed. Matthew indicates that this count excludes women and children. Mark does not deny that there were also women and children. This is really the weakest form of an argument from silence.
Nelson continues,
Second, we do not need any reason to explain the numerical figure. Numbers were often invented in biography and historiography, and so they are often unreliable. This is true also for the feeding stories, which presents us with unrealistically large figures.
Nelson provides no justification for asserting that 5,000 men (besides women and children) is an unrealistically high number, particularly given that the Passover feast was at hand (Jn 6:4).
Nelson further remarks,
Finally, Matthew tells us that five thousand were present, aside from women or children; by making the number larger he makes the miracle even more miraculous. But this is not a particularly noteworthy addition. Elsewhere in his narrative, Matthew also enhances the miraculous nature of Mark — for example, when Jesus heals two demoniacs rather than one, and two blind men rather than one.
This is an extremely poor argument. Indeed, there are multiple counter-examples. For instance, consider the healing of the demon-possessed boy (Mk 9:14-29; Mt 17:14-20). In Mark’s account, “after crying out and convulsing him terribly, [the demon] came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, ‘He is dead.’ But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose,” (Mk 9:26-27). The detail about the boy appearing to be dead and Jesus lifting him up appears only in Mark and is omitted by Matthew. Thus, by a similar argument to Nelson’s, Mark represents Jesus as having performed the greater miracle.
Even the specific example Nelson provides of the two demoniacs in Matthew 8:28-34 vs. one in Mark 5:1-20 is carefully cherry-picked. For example, Mark uniquely indicates that the demoniac could break chains and shackles with superhuman strength, a detail not supplied by Matthew. Mark also uniquely indicates that the man’s name was “Legion, for we are many,” (Mk 5:9), a detail not supplied by Matthew. So, if one were to select a different set of features, Mark’s account may be argued to be the greater miracle.
Reportage of Tradition?
Dependence on Mark?
In his concluding section, Nelson draws attention to what he considers to be important features of the narratives. First, he argues, “all of the accounts are substantially dependent upon Mark’s earliest account. Thus, far from providing four independent eyewitness accounts of the same event, the later Gospels provide variations of the earliest known tradition found in Mark.” This is contrary to my own assessment of the four accounts of the feeding of the five thousand. Indeed, there are various markers of factual independence between the narratives. For example, only John mentions the boy, and that they were barley loaves (Jn 6:9), which fits with the time of year, being near the Passover. Only John mentions that it was Andrew who brought the boy forward (Jn 6:8). Only John mentions the other name of the Sea of Galilee (the Sea of Tiberius), a name that we can confirm from other sources (Jn 6:1). Only John records how far the disciples had rowed when they saw Jesus coming towards him, which is given as an imprecise measurement of twenty-five or thirty stadia, or about three or four miles (Jn 6:19). Matthew and Luke both mention that Jesus healed people (Mt 14:14; Lk 6:11), a detail not supplied by Mark. Only Mark mentions that the disciples landed at Gennesaret (Mk 6:53). This fits with the account in John, which says that they set off for Capernaum (Jn 6:17). One could even view this connection as an undesigned coincidence between Mark and John. Matthew alone mentions that the reason for Jesus leaving with His disciples was that Jesus heard about the death of John the Baptist (Mt 14:13). This is at variance, though compatible, with the statement in Mark 6:31 that it was to get away from the crowds that Jesus instructed the disciples to retreat to a desolate area. The disciples, who witnessed the event, would have been able to draw their own conclusions about what had triggered Jesus’ desire to leave for a desolate place. Finally, only Matthew includes the account of Peter’s request that Jesus ask him to walk toward Him on the water (Mt 14:28-31).
There are also apparent discrepancies (though with plausible harmonizations) that further point to the independence of the accounts. We discussed previously the fact that, in Luke, it is the disciples who say to Jesus “Send the crowd away to go into the surrounding villages and countryside to find lodging and get provisions, for we are here in a desolate place (Lk 9:12), whereas in John, “Jesus said to Philip, ‘Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” (Jn 6:5). Employing some real-world imagination reveals that these accounts are not at all difficult to harmonize. There are, however, yet further examples of apparent discrepancies between the accounts that make the case for independence even stronger. For example, in Mark’s account, the narrative concerning the feeding of the five thousand begins with the disciples returning from a preaching ministry to tell Jesus “all that they had done and taught” (Mk 6:30). Given the busyness of the place, Jesus told the disciples to “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” (v. 31). However, “many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them,” (v. 33). That the people were able to run on ahead of Jesus on foot and arrive before him fits well with the size of the Sea of Galilee, which is only seven miles wide at its widest point. The people came and met Jesus as he was getting out of the boat. Mark tells us that “When he went ashore he saw a great crowd” (v. 34).
Compare this with the account in John 6. John does not mention the disciples’ preaching ministry and their coming to report to Jesus what they had done and taught. Nor does John report Jesus’ instruction to “come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” However, John does indicate that Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which John calls by its other name, the Sea of Tiberius (v. 1). According to John, there was a large crowd following Jesus “because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick” (v. 2). Jesus went up on a mountain and lifted up his eyes and saw the crowd coming toward Him (v. 5). If one were to only read John’s account, one would get the impression that Jesus had gone up to the mountainside with His disciples, and it was only then that He saw the crowd that had been following Him. Note that all four gospels mention the mountain in this region (Mt 14:23; Mk 6:46; Lk 9:28; Jn 6:3). Mark, speaking of the crowd that had followed Jesus, says that Jesus “had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things” (Mk 6:34). In Matthew’s account, we read that “he had compassion on them and healed their sick” (Mt 14:14). In Luke, it mentions both that Jesus “spoke to them of the kingdom of God” and that he “cured those who had need of healing” (Lk 9:11). Thus, we are to picture Jesus having been with the crowd for some time prior to the feeding event. In the synoptics, we are told that when it was getting late, they discussed where to find food for the crowd of people. John, however, does not mention the earlier part of the day. It seems, then, that the crowds converged on him while He had slipped away with His disciples. John’s emphasis, though, is on the feeding through the miraculous multiplication of loaves and fish. The fact that these accounts, which appear upon first blush to contradict one another, fit together so casually reveals the independence of the accounts.
Another discrepancy concerns the question of whether Jesus went up into the mountain to escape the crowds and pray following the feeding of the five thousand before or after the disciples left in a boat. John 6:15-16 implies that it was before the disciples left in a boat, whereas Mark 6:45 says that “he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, toward Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.” The synoptics, however, do not state that Jesus escorted the disciples down to the boat and then went up the mountain. Rather, the gospels simply report that Jesus instructed them to get into the boat and go over to the other side. The instruction could have been given some distance from the shoreline. Indeed, it plausibly could have taken them some time to winnow their way through the crowd and reach the shoreline. Perhaps they could even hear Jesus dismissing the crowds, or Jesus could have informed them of His intentions.
John’s record of events does not in fact conflict with what we read in Mark, if one reads these events as occurring in a somewhat intertwined manner. It is quite conceivable that John’s mind was following the course of Jesus’ actions, and is picturing, as it got dark, the disciples approaching the shore and getting into the boat. That, however, does not entail that Jesus in fact went up the mountain first. Mark (or his source, plausibly Peter), on the other hand, may be thinking of the urgency of Jesus sending them away. If this is the case, then it is not particularly surprising to find the evangelists describing the events in a slightly different order. But this is precisely the sort of variation one might expect to see in independent eyewitness accounts.
Is the narrative shaped by Elisha’s feeding of the one hundred?
Nelson contends that “Mark’s account is itself heavily shaped by the story of Elisha’s feeding of the one hundred in 2 Kings 4.” While there are certainly parallels between the feeding of the five thousand and Elisha’s feeding of the one hundred, I think it is more likely that Jesus had this text in mind and performed a similar (though greater) miracle, thereby intentionally presenting himself as the greater Elisha. Nelson states that “John also appears aware of this base text; for example, in mentioning barley loaves (Jn. 6:9; 2 Kgs 4:42). But the barley loaves fit with the time of year, being near the Passover, a detail supplied earlier in the chapter (Jn 6:4).
Other Jewish traditions
Nelson notes that “There are a number of other Jewish traditions on which this passage draws, which were perceived as messianic. These include the tradition of a messianic meal which features the reconstituted people of God in ‘fifties’ and ‘hundreds’ (like Moses), compassion on the people like sheep without a shepherd (Moses/David), as well as the supernatural provision of bread from heaven (again, like Moses).” Nelson provides no citation for any of these claims. The text that he is most plausibly alluding to in regard to the ‘fifties’ and ‘hundreds’ motif is 1Q28a Col. i:27) [6]:
These are the men appointed to the party of the Yahad: from the age of tw[enty], all the [wis]e of the congregation, the understanding and knowledgeable—who are blameless in their behavior and men of ability—together with the 29tri[bal officials,] all judges, magistrates, captains of thousands, [hundreds,] fifties, and tens, and the Levites, each a full mem[ber of his div]ision of service. These are the men of reputation, who hold commissions in the party of the Yahad in Israel that sits before the Sons of Zadok, the priests.
It seems to me that it is quite the stretch to claim a parallel between this and the feeding of the five thousand account. I do not know what Jewish traditions he has in mind regarding the Messiah having compassion on people like sheep without a shepherd and providing supernatural provision of bread from heaven. I do not believe either of those motifs appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls or Talmudic literature.
Conclusion
I sincerely appreciate the efforts of John Nelson to offer a scholarly critique of the case for the reportage model of the gospels, particularly since the majority of other scholars have completely failed to engage in any substantive way with the arguments we offer. Careful scholarly critique is often very valuable in helping one to refine and better nuance arguments and discover potential vulnerabilities. In the present case, however, the attempted rebuttals offered by John Nelson illuminate the robustness of the arguments rather than their weaknesses. This has in fact been the case with all critiques of the arguments to-date (for another example, see this video where I and a few colleagues engage with another New Testament scholar, Dr. Jeffrey Tripp, showing that his rebuttals to the arguments are no less vacuous than those offered here by John Nelson). Given how poor the critiques of the arguments for the high-resolution reportage view of the gospels have consistently been, it gives me confidence that we are on the right footing.
Footnotes
1. Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 93.
2. Ibid., 94.
3. Cyndi Parker, “Crossing to ‘The Other Side’ of the Sea of Galilee,” in Lexham Geographic Commentary on the Gospels, ed. Barry J. Beitzel and Kristopher A. Lyle, Lexham Geographic Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 162.
4. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Tampa, FL: Deward Publishing Company, Ltd, 2017), 22.
5. Mark Goodacre, “Fatigue in the Synoptics,” New Testament Studies 44 (1998), 45-58.
6. Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 139.